Why mixing religion and politics is bad

[Okieslims]

In my opinion, right wingers tend to be the most patriotic people in America. That said, they also tend to be the most religious people in America, and they seem to desire their religion to be incorperated into our schools, laws, etc. If you disagree with them, they make claims that we would have no laws or morals without christianity as a guide and point to the decloration of indipendence and many other founding documents that reference God to strengthen the words on the paper.
I think this mind set lessens the freedom we have in America and I think it is leading us down a dangerous path. I would like to draw a comparison to other countries that incorperate religion into their laws and schools. Muslim nations that live by the book to a far greater degree than the vast majority of christians ever would. Religion, when mixed into the laws of a society, works to remove freedom from the people. A long time ago a friend of mine, in the air force, witnessed a man get his head cut off in the middle east(forget which country he said) for cheating on his wife. This happened in the middle of a town square. Would this have happened if people didnt use the law to punish this man for sinning against God? Women are forced to cover themselves from head to toe, people that believe in other Gods are expelled from the community or worse(sometimes killed), and punishment for sins follows the brutality of the old testiment.
Right wingers love to link left wingers and middle easterners together to make the left seem more radical. I think that the middle easterners have more in common with the religious right though. I think the only difference is that middle easterners live by their religious scriptures..they walk it... and American christians simply talk it.. but they want to incorperate it into the laws and do a whole lot more walking and thats kind of scary.
SO I hope this little-early mornin rant helps some of you folks realize why mixing religion and politics is a dangerous-freedom sucking practice.

[SoylentGreen]

OkieslimsSO I hope this little-early mornin rant helps some of you folks realize why mixing religion and politics is a dangerous-freedom sucking practice.

Agreed and it is the main reason i object to religion. If someone wants a god in their life , fine , so be it. If they want to push there silly beliefs into law then that's a problem.

[Aristotle]

If one must obey God's laws, who deemed us as the enforcers of such? As cliche as it would be to say judge not lest you be judged, the way one holds his personal beliefs is a very private matter, something apart from state.

I do think however, there is a certain need for ethical integrity within government, a set of beliefs and values to be upheld when forming and evaluating laws. Does this necessarily mean that we should apply Christian ethics to such laws? I don't think it is limited to just that, however one cannot help but understand that such an ethical system is rooted in how we operate in terms of government and is therefore likely to have instances of Christianity arising from such. Not saying that such instances are beneficial or justified, just that they happen.

[Spartan 117]

What would be dangerous about having Christianity a part of school or government. Lets see what Christianity teaches first it says that murder, adultery, stealing, is wrong and that you should honor your parents and love your neighbor's yeah thats sounds really dangerous to me. The fact that you compare Islam to Christianity just shows your lack of knowledge about either.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Spartan 117 What would be dangerous about having Christianity a part of school or government. Lets see what Christianity teaches first it says that murder, adultery, stealing, is wrong and that you should honor your parents and love your neighbor's yeah thats sounds really dangerous to me. The fact that you compare Islam to Christianity just shows your lack of knowledge about either.

Why Christianity and not another religion?

Also, you name good aspects of Christianity (albeit very, very obvious attributes which non-religious people would deem good aspects as well), however there are some aspects which wouldn't work at all. One example from the bible is that women should not speak in church - that could easily be an argument for silencing women in the senate or house.


"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)"

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Spartan What would be dangerous about having Christianity a part of school or government. Lets see what Christianity teaches first it says that murder, adultery, stealing, is wrong and that you should honor your parents and love your neighbor's yeah thats sounds really dangerous to me.

That's interesting... of course Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. also say that murder, adultery and stealing are wrong and that you should honor your parents.

In fact, here's the Golden Rule, as interpreted in 21 different religions.

On the other hand, the Bible also teaches that making graven images is a sin (oh wait, no!!! I make graven images for a living), that I can't say, "Holy cow!", that being born a homosexual is evil, that we shouldn't charge interest on loans, that slavery is a perfectly acceptable institution, that women are inferior and should be subject to men, etc. etc. as well as that apparently we are to ignore the lessons of modern science if and when it conflicts with bronze-age ignorance.

Tell ya what, Spartan, maybe we should leave religion in the home and the church.

.

[Spartan 117]

Quote by: WindWip Why Christianity and not another religion? Also, you name good aspects of Christianity (albeit very, very obvious attributes which non-religious people would deem good aspects as well), however there are some aspects which wouldn't work at all. One example from the bible is that women should not speak in church - that could easily be an argument for silencing women in the senate or house. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)"

I am not saying that Christianity should be a part of the government, I was more speaking about schools and if evolution and the big bang theory can be taught in school then why shouldn't they also talk about creationism. Either take both evolution or also include creationism with it. I can not remember where it was or the in the bible or exactly how it said it but the basic idea was don't let small details break up a church when the church should be focused on the bigger issues.

[Okieslims]

Quote by: Spartan 117 What would be dangerous about having Christianity a part of school or government. Lets see what Christianity teaches first it says that murder, adultery, stealing, is wrong and that you should honor your parents and love your neighbor's yeah thats sounds really dangerous to me. The fact that you compare Islam to Christianity just shows your lack of knowledge about either.

That's you're version of christianity. Why teach just that section in school? Why stop there? Why not speak of the tortures of hell.. and then compare and contrast it to American's aversion to torture? It's ok for God to damn somebody to torture, but we can't use it to isntil fear or coherse information? Why not speak of killing babies to make a point? Why not speak of raping women and keeping slaves to make a point? Why not speak of raining fire down on non-believers?
Where is the line? .. and if you really believe in God, should there even be a line? His rule over-rules..right?

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Spartan 117 I am not saying that Christianity should be a part of the government, I was more speaking about schools and if evolution and the big bang theory can be taught in school then why shouldn't they also talk about creationism. Either take both evolution or also include creationism with it. I can not remember where it was or the in the bible or exactly how it said it but the basic idea was don't let small details break up a church when the church should be focused on the bigger issues.

Creationism isn’t taught in schools because it’s not scientific - it doesn’t follow the scientific method of investigation. It’s part of a belief system. Belief systems should be taught at home.

Evolution and the big bang theory differ because they follow the scientific method and have extensive scientific evidence that hasn’t been disproven. And they aren’t part of a belief system – they are acknowledged by many atheists and theists alike. These theories include no claims about the existence or lack of existence of God.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Spartan 117 I am not saying that Christianity should be a part of the government, I was more speaking about schools and if evolution and the big bang theory can be taught in school then why shouldn't they also talk about creationism. Either take both evolution or also include creationism with it. I can not remember where it was or the in the bible or exactly how it said it but the basic idea was don't let small details break up a church when the church should be focused on the bigger issues.

Why? Very simple, it's based in belief and faith and not science. It is part of a religion, and therefore should be separate. If not, why only the christian version? Why not other versions? We need to have science classrooms be a place where one can learn what their supposed to in those classes: Science, not religion.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Spartan I am not saying that Christianity should be a part of the government, I was more speaking about schools and if evolution and the big bang theory can be taught in school then why shouldn't they also talk about creationism.

And which creation myth should we teach?

The Biblical one? Doesn't that advocate a specific religion, or set of religions?

Here's an idea... we teach science as science, and religion as religion.

.

[Apeman81]

Religion, in as much as it refers to an orthodoxy of shared interpretations of God's word, in relation to how he would have us live our lives, should not hold the power of elected government in America. We do not want a theocracy.

Each of us has a belief system based upon a number influences, including among them our belief or disbelief in a deity. For some, they prefer to use their knowledge of science, others history. Some follow the crowd and others care a great deal and study hard to come up with their positions.

So it is only natural that some will make their choices, citing their religious beliefs as a primary contributing factor. Their choice is no less valid than the choice made by any other.

So mixing religious belief and politics in not dangerous.

Trying to deny that right to the people most assuredly is.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Apeman81 Religion, in as much as it refers to an orthodoxy of shared interpretations of God's word, in relation to how he would have us live our lives, should not hold the power of elected government in America. We do not want a theocracy. Each of us has a belief system based upon a number influences, including among them our belief or disbelief in a deity. For some, they prefer to use their knowledge of science, others history. Some follow the crowd and others care a great deal and study hard to come up with their positions. So it is only natural that some will make their choices, citing their religious beliefs as a primary contributing factor. Their choice is no less valid than the choice made by any other. So mixing religious belief and politics in not dangerous. Trying to deny that right to the people most assuredly is.

Politicians already have every right to justify their policies using their personal religious beliefs. It's up to the people if they want vote for that kind of politician though.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Spartan 117 I am not saying that Christianity should be a part of the government, I was more speaking about schools and if evolution and the big bang theory can be taught in school then why shouldn't they also talk about creationism. Either take both evolution or also include creationism with it. I can not remember where it was or the in the bible or exactly how it said it but the basic idea was don't let small details break up a church when the church should be focused on the bigger issues.

Well, the subject we were discussing was whether religion should be in the government, so I assumed that you were talking about that.

Creationism and evolution being taught in schools is a different debate, which I would gladly discuss, but this is not the thread for that debate.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman Trying to deny that right to the people most assuredly is.

Which right is that? The right to worship as you choose? Or the right to impose your beliefs on others?

Or are the two one and the same?

Quote by: Windwip Creationism and evolution being taught in schools is a different debate, which I would gladly discuss, but this is not the thread for that debate.

Public schools are an instrument of local government, therefore teaching creationism in public schools is very clearly about religion in government.

.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Apeman81 Religion, in as much as it refers to an orthodoxy of shared interpretations of God's word, in relation to how he would have us live our lives, should not hold the power of elected government in America. We do not want a theocracy. Each of us has a belief system based upon a number influences, including among them our belief or disbelief in a deity. For some, they prefer to use their knowledge of science, others history. Some follow the crowd and others care a great deal and study hard to come up with their positions. So it is only natural that some will make their choices, citing their religious beliefs as a primary contributing factor. Their choice is no less valid than the choice made by any other.

When you say citing their religious beliefs as a factor, are you talking about when they make choices?

If so then I would say that a choice is definitely more or less valid depending on the reasoning behind the choice. Choices stem from beliefs and if someone said that the world is flat and they know this because God told them, I would ask for some proof or evidence. If there was no evidence to support the claim, then I would say that their belief had no validity.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Sonart Public schools are an instrument of local government, therefore teaching creationism in public schools is very clearly about religion in government. .

Yes, but that tiny aspect of the debate focuses on the validity of evolution and the validity of creationism. It doesn't give any reasons for if religion should be in government or not.

Even if there was scientific evidence for creationism and if it was then taught in school, it still wouldn't answer the question about religion in government because the only reason it would be taught in public schools is because it had evidence supporting it. That debate is over evidence and validity. So there really isn't a reason to discuss that particular aspect of Christianity in the debate about religion in government.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: WindWip Yes, but that tiny aspect of the debate focuses on the validity of evolution and the validity of creationism. It doesn't give any reasons for if religion should be in government or not.

It's the camel's nose under the tent, WindWip. Christians have lost the issue of prayer in school and overt Christian beliefs being taught, so they're looking around for some way - any way - of keeping Judea/Christian belief taught in public schools. And since they're losing the creationism fight too, the camel's nose has been pushed further out, until now it only looks like 'Intelligent Design'.

Of course, the other option that seems to be gaining ground is optional Bible Study classes in high school.

.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Sonart . Which right is that? The right to worship as you choose? Or the right to impose your beliefs on others?.

Certainly you do not believe that only those who hold to a religion are imposing their beliefs upon others.

Any time any one of us chooses to support a governance (the ceding of freedom for government in order to facilitate societal needs) based upon what we think is the right thing to do, we seek to impose our will through the collective upon all others.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: WindWip When you say citing their religious beliefs as a factor, are you talking about when they make choices? If so then I would say that a choice is definitely more or less valid depending on the reasoning behind the choice. Choices stem from beliefs and if someone said that the world is flat and they know this because God told them, I would ask for some proof or evidence. If there was no evidence to support the claim, then I would say that their belief had no validity.

Would you deny them the right to elect officials and support initiatives or ballots?

If so, what body gets to decide which beliefs disqualify the voter?